Five Documents of Drogheda Interest from the Registers of the Archbishops of Armagh

County Louth Archaeological and History Society

Five Documents of Drogheda Interest from the Registers of the Archbishops of ArmaghAuthor(s): Anthony LynchSource: Journal of the County Louth Archaeological and Historical Society, Vol. 21, No. 4(1988), pp. 407-414Published by: County Louth Archaeological and History SocietyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/27729655 .

Accessed: 14/06/2014 12:05

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

County Louth Archaeological and History Society is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extendaccess to Journal of the County Louth Archaeological and Historical Society.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.101 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 12:05:50 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=clahs

http://www.jstor.org/stable/27729655?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


Five Documents of

Drogheda Interest

from the Registers of the

Archbishops of Armagh By Anthony Lynch

INTRODUCTION

My purpose in presenting in translation these five documents relating to Drogheda is to

awaken readers to the value of the registers as a source for the medieval history of that town in

particular, and of Co Louth in general. These five documents give us an idea of the vitality of life in Drogheda in the fifteenth

century. They provide a random sample to illustrate how relevant the registers are as social

documents which provide the small but authentic details which give life and colour to the

tapestry which we as historians seek to reconstruct of life in the medieval town. A wide variety of people of different social classes, professions and trades are represented and each individual is seen in action against the background of his or her environment.

Documents 1 and 2 emphasize the importance that was attached to one's good name, and

the danger which accusations of dishonesty, forgery, and theft posed to those such as John

Bardan who earned his living as a goldsmith. Hence the vigour with which he fought to

preserve his reputation. The severity of the sanction which the decree of the provincial council directed against defamers and slanderers serves to emphasize the gravity with which the

church viewed their activities, and the damage they could cause in a society where privacy was

non-existent, and where everybody's business was well known. In medieval towns and cities,

among a volatile populace, rumour and scandal-mongering flourished, and often had serious

consequences for their victims.

As an aside on others knowing one's business, and the ease with which conversations could be overheard in the narrow streets with their poorly-constructed houses, we note with

amusement the clarity of the details of conversation and the disturbance to the hens which

Johanna Veldon recalled in court. These she had heard as she lay resting in bed. The registers frequently contain details of conversations and actions overheard or seen from nearby rooms.

The witnesses were later able to present them as evidence in court. Couples in bed were as

vulnerable to prying eyes and ears as anyone else, and newly-weds were subjected to particular scrutiny.

Michael Tregury had been provided to the see of Dublin in the autumn of 1449, and was

still quite inexperienced when he came to Drogheda to attend the parliament there in March 1451. It was unusual for the archbishop of Dublin to come into the province of Armagh, and

similarly, the archbishop of Armagh avoided entering the Dublin province whenever possible, and refused to attend parliament in Dublin, on account of the long-standing dispute over the

primacy. This dispute and the powerful feelings it evoked form the basis for an understanding of the issues behind Document 3. The people of Drogheda were well aware of the issues at

stake, and they watched his arrival in Drogheda keenly for any attempt on that archbishop's

407



408 County Louth Archaeological and Historical Journal

part to lay claim to jurisdiction or authority within the province of Armagh. It was the right of

the archbishop to have his cross borne in procession before him in those areas which were

subject to his authority; that is, within his province. Only a prelate who claimed primatial

jurisdiction over other provinces would seek to have his cross carried in them, and when the

people of Drogheda saw Thomas Faunt carrying the cross for repair they considered that

Archbishop Tregury was openly claiming primacy over them, their archbishop, John Mey, and

the entire province of Armagh. Their outrage manifested itself in an outcry against

Archbishop Tregury. The latter's formal denial of responsibility for what had been done, and

his renunciation of any claim to exercise primatial authority within the province of Armagh must have been done at Archbishop Mey's insistence. No doubt it was a source of relish to the

latter and to the people of Drogheda to see Archbishop Tregury in such an embarrassing

position, forced to make such a public and humiliating renunciation.

Besides this major issue, the document contains minor details of interest. The archbishop of Dublin obviously travelled with quite a retinue if his statement that he was unaware of what was causing the commotion is to be believed. Since he was but one of the great lords, spiritual and temporal, attending the parliament, the townspeople saw plenty of pomp and pageantry as

these gentlemen and nobles passed through the streets from their lodgings to the sittings of

parliament (probably at the Franciscan friary), and to the various entertainments arranged for

them.

In Document 4, dated 4 June 1457, Walter Kylt, a Meath man who had been notary public since 1427 made an interesting gift of a clavichord to his fellow notary and member of the

archbishop's staff, William Somerwell.1 This suggests that both men shared a common interest

in music and had enjoyed many a pleasant evening playing and singing at that same

instrument. The gift of books was less unusual. The will also provides a list of the principal

furnishings and utensils of an ordinary house in Drogheda in the mid-fifteenth century. The

will and deed of gift were confirmed before Master John Leche, an ecclesiastical judge who

was sitting in the consistory court at St Peter's Church, Drogheda. This church was in effect

the archbishop's pro-cathedral, since the cathedral in Armagh was so far distant, and often cut

off by reason of weather or warfare. Elsewhere the registers provide us with a wealth of

information on the chantries, courts, and personnel at St Peter's Church, and it is impossible for anyone with an interest in medieval Drogheda to ignore them.

Document 5 serves to emphasise the importance of the port of Drogheda. In it we are

provided with a picture of port life; a haven where sailors felt safe to go ashore to enjoy themselves, with dire consequences for their vessels.

Archbishop Octavian heard of the arrival of the three ships from members of his

household, and climbed the tower of his manor in Termonfeckin to see them enter the port and drop anchor, thus providing a very human touch of curiosity as well as the details of

personal observation to his narrative. His staff in Drogheda were able to supply him with the

details of the ships' cargo: iron, salt, wine and other merchandise - the first three of these

being key imports.

Among those present when the archbishop gave his testimony was Br. John Wod, prior of

Blessed Mary de Urso. The priory of St Mary was a house of the Crutched Friars or Fratres

Cruciferi, O.S.A., one of three belonging to that order in the area which acted as hospitals or

asylums for the care of the sick. Again the registers provide us with the details of these and

other religious houses in the area.

1. For more on William Somerwell, see the appendix to W.G.H. Quigley and E.F.D. Roberts (eds.), Registrum Iohannis Mey: The Register of John Mey Archbishop of Armagh, 1443-1456 (Belfast 1972), pp xliii-xliv.



Five Documents of Drogheda Interest from the Registers of the Archbishops of Armagh 409

What I have given here is not the whole story of medieval Drogheda; indeed it is no more

than a small indication, a mere sample of the wealth and variety of the material to be found

within the registers. My purpose has been to shine a torch into the Aladdin's cave, and hope to

tempt others to enter and help themselves to the treasures within.

NOTES

The other published register is D. A. Chart (ed.), The Register of John Swayne, Archbishop of Armagh and Primate of Ireland 1418-1439 (Belfast, 1935). Short calendars are available for two others: H.J. Lawlor, 4A Calendar of the

Register of Archbishop Sweteman', in Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy, 29C, (1911-12), no. 8, pp 213-310, and

H. J. Lawlor, 'A Calendar of the Register of Archbishop Fleming', in Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy, 30C,

(1912-3), no. 5, pp 94-190. Two others remain unpublished: the Register of Archbishop John Prene (1439-43), P.R.O.N.I., MS Dio. 4/2/7A, and the Register of Archbishop Octavian de Palatio, (1478-1513), P.R.O.N.I., MS Dio.

4/2/9. Each of these registers contains documents from the other, as well as material from the registers of Archbishops

Mey and Bole.

I have gathered the material relating to Archbishop Bole (1457-71) in an attempt to recover his register. I hope to

publish this in Seanchas Ard M hacha in the near future.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I wish to thank Dr Michael Haren of the Irish Manuscripts Commission, Dublin, and

Professor David West of the Department of Classics, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, for

their help with the translations, and Dr George Quigley who provided me with typescript

copies of the Latin documents from the registers of Archbishops Prene and Octavian.

1

Mey's Register, No. 41 (p. 52)

(18 February 1440 and following. Acta in a case of defamation)

On the 18th day of February in the year of Our Lord, 1439 (recte 1440), John Bardan,

goldsmith, and John, his brother {sic!), of Drogheda, in Armagh diocese, sought individually and together that Juliana Logan of the aforesaid Drogheda be canonically punished, for and in

that she, the said Juliana, in violation of the provincial constitution of the church of Armagh which begins thus: 'Moreover, we excommunicate all those who for the sake of hate or money or favour, maliciously defame anyone . . . etc.', which bound her and binds her at present, since she has defamed the said John and John his brother among good and earnest men by

saying publicly and accusing them of being makers of false money, and of making their servant

change his clothes twice daily, so as to change their false money. Moreover, she said that the

older John and his wife had stolen her hens. [lit. the hens of the said Julia]. More was being done to them than was right and proper, [i.e. the Bardans had had as much as they could

endure]. On the aforementioned day, the parties having taken their place in court, and the said

article having been expounded to the aforementioned Julia by the judge; to which she

responded negatively, and she denied to the judge that she had ever said such things. Thus a

case [or conflict] was established, and the parties sworn, etc., and the case was adjourned until

the second day of March for its first hearing. On which day (the following) were produced in

court and were sworn: John Smith, Elena Verd?n, Katherine Hamon, Emmina Telying, and

John Mole: then afterwards, Johanna Veldon and Richard Tanner were produced in the




presence of the said Juliana, and sworn in in the presence of the said Juliana. The day following St Patrick's Day was set aside for making public the examination of witnesses which

would be conducted in the meantime.

Objection was made on Juliana's behalf in the matter of making a statement, on the

witnesses, and on their testimony in each and every section of the case, right up to the definitive sentence. On which day (18 March), the parties in the case being personally constituted, the case was continued in the same state until 7 April. On that day it was

adjourned till 28 April in the hope of reconciliation, and from thence to the following day, and from then on by general continuation, till the last day of January. On which day the official

(judge) ordered specifically that the witnesses of the said John and John his brother be examined before 9 March following so that their testimony could be made public on that day.

On which day, the attestations having been published, it is on the penultimate day of the same

month for the making of a statement on the witnesses and on their testimony. From then an adjournment till 18 May, and from then till the first day of June, and from

then till 5 October.

Note: On 30 March 1451 Archbishop Michael Tregury of Dublin claimed he was bringing his cross to a Drogheda goldsmith for repairs; to the Bardans, perhaps? (See No. 3).

2

Mey's Register, No. 42 (pp 53-4)

(8 March 1441. Examination of witnesses in a case of defamation)

Examination of the witnesses of John Bardan and his brother in a case of defamation, as

in the preceding document, held on 8 March in the year of Our Lord 1440 (recte 1441) John Smyth, the first witness, of competent age etc., was produced, admitted, sworn and

diligently questioned. Firstly regarding his knowing the said John, (John) and Juliana, he said

he knew them for six or seven years. When questioned concerning the matter of the

defamation, he replied that the said Juliana had said in the presence of the witness who spoke and various others, that the said John did not have any other way of living, nor did he know

how to do anything else except to send to the same Juliana false money of his own making by his own man, and he added that the same Juliana beat the same messenger of the said John, and at another time verbally abused him; and she said things regarding the said John and John

his brother which he did not wish to repeat, but later because of the oath he had taken about

telling the truth, he told how the said Juliana had said that John B(ardan) and his brother made and knew how to make 'de pannes bottoms mony' [money from pans' bottoms]. When he was

asked about the time when this was said, he replied that he did not know; and when asked who was present, he said that Johanna Veldon was, and many others whom he could not now recall at present. Asked of the intention to defame, he said that he did not know but supposed that

such was the case. Concerning the constitution, he said that he did not know, and of the matters voiced in public utterance, he said that these were spoken of throughout the town, and

that his sole purpose in speaking of these matters was to tell the truth.

Elena Verd?n, wife of Richard Bole, second witness, about twenty years old, was

produced, admitted, sworn and diligently questioned. She said firstly that she had known the

said Johns and Juliana for about four or five years; and when questioned on the matter of the

defamation and whether she knew of it, she said that as John's servant was going by the




witness who was speaking, she heard the said Juliana speaking thus: 'A thow fais boy! Meny a

fais peny hast thou broght to me'. Questioned as to the place where this occurred, she said 'in Westrata goyng to ther own plas'. Asked whether there were others present, she said that

there were several persons present whom she could not remember for the moment. She related moreover that the said Juliana on this pretext defamed both the said John B(ardan) and John senior his brother, and she deposed also that (there was) the intention to deceive, and she stated that she had often heard that Juliana was excommunicated for this in accordance

with the provincial constitution, and she stated also that public report and repute were busy in

Drogheda concerning this defamation. Beyond this she knew nothing, and she had spoken only for the sake of the truth in this matter, and not otherwise [i.e. not from hate, or for wealth or favour],

Johanna Veldon, third witness, aged fifty years and more was produced, admitted, sworn, and diligently questioned about knowing (those involved) as above, and about the matter of the scandal. She replied that she knew nothing, save that she had been in Clongell on that day, and she returned to Drogheda and lay in her bed in her own house, and she heard John senior's maid-servant, and his wife Katherine coming, and the said Juliana who asked her 'What are you doing here?' She replied, T have come to see whether these are our hens or

not', and she (Johanna Veldon) did not know whether she tried to take some of them with her or not, but the hens cackled and fluttered about. Then she heard the said Juliana saying that she saw and knew that 'hyr meche Zolowe hen' (her big yellow hen) was with John Bardan's

mother. She (J. Veldon) knew no more than she had said. Richard Tanner, twenty-four years of age and more, was the fourth witness. He was

produced, admitted, sworn, and diligently questioned about knowing the said John, John, and Juliana. (He said he knew them) for two years and more; and about the matter of the

defamation, he said that he heard the said Juliana one day, after other days of discord among themselves, calling the said John and John 'fais harlotes and fais mony makers' in the presence

of various others whose names he did not know, and she continued in diverse terms of the same effect (and meaning), and public report and repute were busy with the intention of

defaming. This he deposed for the moment, and he did not relate these matters save to tell the truth. Moreover he said that Juliana had said to the witness who spoke (i.e. himself) that the said John junior was at Juliana's door around the feast of the Nativity of Our Lord last, and he

opened the door so as to kill her, and she said this with intent to defame him in the eyes of both the witness who spoke, and Alice, the witness's wife.

Adam Drake, the last witness, was produced, admitted, sworn and diligently questioned. He said that he heard the said Juliana had often imputed the charge of falsehood, mostly that of making false money against John Bardan and his brother John, and spread the rumour that their servant often came with this money to the said Juliana both by day and by night to deceive her, and this she did with the intention of defaming and arousing hate, whence both in the town of Drogheda and in the neighbouring areas public report and repute were busy . . ., and in this and other matters he agreed with the said Richard.

3

Mey\s Register, No. 405 (pp 432-3)

(Memorandum regarding the carrying of the head of the cross of the archbishop of Dublin when coming to the king's parliament at Drogheda. 30 March 1451.)

Memorandum that, on public report which relates that Sir Thomas Faunt, chaplain and




cross-bearer of the lord archbishop of Dublin, in the presence of the same archbishop coming to the royal parliament at Drogheda from the boundary of his diocese to his lodgings in

Drogheda in the house called Frobolles Inn in St. Laurence Street, Drogheda, where Master

John Prene lives, carried the head of the archbishop's cross plainly and openly before him, above the front part of his mantle, in the sight of several, it being suspected that he had done

this by the express knowledge, will and mandate of the lord archbishop inasmuch as he would

thereby acquire for himself and usurp a right. And thereby question having been raised and no

little dissension having been aroused, both to end discord and in this regard to declare the

intention of the said archbishop and also the cause of the coming of the said [cross] head, on

the penultimate day of March, in the year of the Incarnation of Our Lord, according to the

computation of the churches of England and Ireland, 1451, the fourteenth indiction, the fifth

year of his holiness in Christ, our lord and father, Nicholas V, pope by divine providence, at

the Friars Minors, in the room assigned for the council of our lord, the king, where there were

constituted the noble, powerful and generous lord, lord James le Botiller, earl of Ormond,

deputy of the lord duke of York, the lord king's lieutenant in Ireland, in my presence as notary

public and that of the witnesses named below, specifically called and summoned to be present on account of this matter. Principally by means of the lord deputy, before whom the said lord

[archbishop] of Dublin, then present, having narrated and declared that this had not been

done on purpose or with intent of acquiring to himself any jurisdiction, nor by his express

knowledge or command, but on account of the defect of fracture which it was suffering at

Drogheda, as it had been said there was there a good craftsman in gold, inasmuch as it needed

reshaping, over which the same lord [archbishop] of Dublin before the same lord deputy and

several others of the king's council, had purged himself, and on close enquiry the said lord

deputy on the strength of the above relation, and in consideration of the foregoing, from the

same lord [archbishop] on larger declaration, he expressly said in virtue and under the

obligation of an oath taken by him both to our lord the king, and to his own church at Dublin, that this had been done not with mind or intention of usurping to himself the jurisdiction of

anyone, or of acquiring any right, nor by his mandate, nor did he know anything in respect of it

until he had heard it from the common outcry at Drogheda; nor coming on the way did he

otherwise know that it had been carried openly, nor for any other cause than for repair of the

defect or break from which it suffered inasmuch as it needed repair at Drogheda, and he

believed that he [the chaplain] had carried the same head under the cover of his cloak or under

other covering, nor did he come for any other reason than that expressed, and if perhaps there

should be any act or attempt in respect of the confection of any act or public instrument

thereupon by reason of this carrying [bearing of the cross] aforesaid, that he did not order it to

be made, that he is not ratifying it or wishing it to be taken as ratified but rather to be

considered as not having taken place, revoked and nullified.

These things were done in the presence of these: most reverend father and lord in Christ, lord John, archbishop of Armagh, primate of Ireland, together with the venerable father in

Christ, Edmund, bishop of Meath by the grace of God and the apostolic see, chancellor of

Ireland, and the barons of Slane and Delvyn, and the lords Gormanstown, Howth, and

Killeen, and masters Thomas Walshe and John Prene and several other legal experts, and the

present writer2 and Walter Kylt, public notaries, and many others, both clerical and lay, in the

large multitude present as witnesses to the foregoing.

2. Probably William Sherwood. No. 4 records that he was a public notary.




4

Walter Kylt's Will

(Belfast, P.R.O.N.I., MS Dio. 4/2/7A Prene's Register, Lib. Ill, f. 48v.)

Memorandum that, as long since, Master Walter Kylt, by his charter of donation, had

given to Master William Somerwell a clavichord and all his books according to the expressed form as more clearly set forth in this charter.

The same Master Walter, on 21 June 1457, at St. Peter's, Drogheda, before John Leche

sitting in his accustomed seat in the place of consistory as the tribunal of the church of

Armagh, reviewed, renewed and confirmed this charter and donation in the presence of

Master William Symcock and Christopher, the apparitor, also summoned as witnesses.

Item: In the presence of the judge and witnesses already mentioned on the aforesaid year, month, day and place, the said Master Walter had produced the reverend and discreet man,

Henry Patton, vicar of St. Peter's, Drogheda, in that he had been present as curate at the last

will of Anna Avell, Walter's wife, at the request of the said Walter for the fuller confirmation

of the matter to all concerned, (Henry) said, bore witness and expressly declared that the said

Anna willed and assigned to the same, her husband, the residue of his term in the house in

which they then dwelt, and also for the use of the said spouse all the implements of the house, utensils thus chiefly specified: [Remainder in English] 'the Adthe above the benche, gwysshin

[cushion] and the cauker and a . . . pewter vessell, spitt, trippetts [tripods], a qweerne [quern],

messhing kyve [mashing kieve - used for brewing], a cheyre, 2 foarmes, the chief bed with the

coverlet and the cloths of the same, the met [meat] board trestells and wynnysheet [possibly winnowing sheet], and sakks and other small harness of household'.

5

The Primate's testimony about certain ships staying at the port of Drogheda

(Belfast, P.R.O.N.I., MS Dio. 4/2/9/ Octavian's Reg., f. 332r.)

Primate Octavian to all, etc.

The primate, asked by the mayor, sheriffs, aldermen, burgesses and commons of Drogheda town, in Armagh diocese and province, to bear true witness in this matter, notifies all by these

presents, that he, hearing from his familiars that three ships sailing on the sea were seeking the

port of Drogheda town on 1 July 1484, climbed a tower in his manor of Termonfeghyn, which

is not more than a mile distant from Drogheda port, and observed those three ships of Brittany

mooring in the said port with sails furled and anchors planted, and he saw no ships coming after them. These three ships he observed staying peacefully and quietly in that port then for

four continuous hours. After those four hours he saw from afar two other ships of Liverpool

running under sail from the south with great haste to the said port. These two ships were then

John Byrron, esquire's, lieutenant of the lord of the Isle of Man, and the same John was then

their owner. In those two ships at the time were John Dampfort, Thomas of Ewes, William

Herbron, Alexander Sculfor, and Hugh of Swynle, men and familiars of the same John

Byrron, seamen and captains. They attacked the three ships of Brittany which were within the

limits of the said port. Most of the seamen and merchants of the three ships, considering their

ships to be in sufficient safety, fearing no piratical attack in their absence, and seeing no ships after them, had gone into Drogheda town for recreation, as the primate understood from the




account of his familiars then in town, and other trustworthy persons. Two of the ships from

Brittany, loaded with iron, salt, wine and merchandise; (one was the Mighell of Garrant, Peter Poundlok, master, and the other the Kateryne of Croswyk, Thomas Moysan, master),

they took with piratical attack, and seized them with all their merchandise, and carried them

off.

The primate notifies by these presents all etc. of this. Given at the above manor, 10 April 1485, and the 6th year of his consecration.

On the ninth of April in the same year, in the royal way which leads from St Laurence's

Gate of Drogheda town by the Hospital of St Laurence by the same town, the primate testified

that all the above had been and was true, decreed that letters testimonial under his seal should

be made about it and ordered [the notary] to write them. Present then were Brother John

Wod, prior of Blessed Mary de Urso, Sirs Thomas Waren, Francis Proty, and Richard Rede,

chaplains, many others, clergy and laymen, and T[homas] L[ang], N.P., writing.

